Few sports fans are as keen to talk about records, classic matches, great players from the past etc as cricket buffs. This is where all such posts should be made. You will find an excellent library of cricket views, opinions and records here. Go ahead, be a classic cricket pundit. We take you seriously.

You answered itself yourself with logistics (player, umpire, support - odi is often a different crowd and rating spectacle oft at night) being the key reason to tests and odi played in isolation of each other.

Personally I miss the odi tri-series - either compact or extended. Apparently they fail financially. That said - Aus and NZ host a t20 triseries with England this upcomming season.

Before ICC ratings, if the first two or three days of a test were washed out, teams often used to play a one dayer. Hadlee's heartbreak in 1988/89 vs Pakistan is an example of such a game. He took a 5 for but had to wait after injury to a tour of India to finally get the best of Beefy's test world record for wickets.

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."

Aneesmoha wrote:Please tell me that I am not the only one that remembers when tours were structured differently??

I remember when they used to play a test then 2-3 ODIs then another test then another 2-3 ODIs and then a test and a final ODI. I prefered this over how tours are structured now.

I know that there are players that only play tests and only ODIs but still...

I remember when Australia would arrive in England in early May play 4-6 county matches, before the 1st test, play more matches between tests, the last time this happened was in 2001, the last time we won in England 2001, coincidence?

Aneesmoha wrote:Please tell me that I am not the only one that remembers when tours were structured differently??

I remember when they used to play a test then 2-3 ODIs then another test then another 2-3 ODIs and then a test and a final ODI. I prefered this over how tours are structured now.

I know that there are players that only play tests and only ODIs but still...

I remember when Australia would arrive in England in early May play 4-6 county matches, before the 1st test, play more matches between tests, the last time this happened was in 2001, the last time we won in England 2001, coincidence?

Possibly not, but there are a lot more factors at play despite Australian teams being a lot weaker than the Waugh era, and arguably county teams being weaker themselves as well. IPL and ODI/T20i matches pay a lot more handsomely to the touring players than 2 to 4 more county games, and if you're going to be away from home for such a long period of time, players want to play dollar earning matches of broadcast substance. England would rather play Australia in more ODI and T20 games than in the past. in 2001 there were NO England vs Australia ODI matches. In 2015 there were 5 odi matches and a t20 match. 2013 saw a ICC champions trophy played in England in June and early July before the Ashes. Australia competed in this and did England.

England managed to squeeze in a test and odi series against NZ in 2015 before commencing their battle with Australia. They did the same in 2009 against the West Indies (and 2005 against Bangladesh; 2001 vs Pakistan when Eng lose to a Aussie Superteam). NZ had players flying in with NO warm up games at all from the IPL straight into tests. All this meant that the host was very well prepared come the Ashes. Australia played a couple of county games in 2015, but would a couple more really have helped Shane Watson and his lbw problems? Does facing a Jesse Ryder led county attack more often in warm ups really prepare for Broad and Anderson in test? How do you compare a longer county warmup stint as against a host who is playing international cricket at a really competitive level (England drew with NZ but very nearly lost 2-0 in the tests).

But here is the flipside of coin for England, its players are now getting a sniff of IPL and they are now the ones flying back into England from India to play immediately for test or odi duties. England tours now have the advantage of Ireland having test status, meaning there can be a quick match or two played against them which is good for both the coffers and the tourists getting ready. Is Ireland as strong as a county team? More so than some, but the top strength sides like Yorkshire are not all that likely to have their international players available for a tour game anyway, especially with England playing internationals in this period.

Ultimately, what the players want is more high paying matches (IPL and internationals) that get broadcast. What most fans want by voting with their wallets is more broadcasted cricket of high quality. Tours are getting shorter everywhere, but more internationals are played; for poorer nations like NZ, we get to play 2 test tours and returned with such. The warmups are often more limited than we'd like, but who are we to complain when sometimes our best in the England tour example are playing IPL instead?

Furthermore Mick, Australian players could easily get county contracts during the IPL England summer overlap. There is nothing stopping them from playing county cricket in May before the the test series of July and August is fought. But wasn't the only seasoned county pro in Australia's last Ashes the opening batsman Chris Rogers? Sure Warner Smith et al have played in FC scene - in T20 abd some FC, but I mean a serious heap of English experience like Hussey, Waughs, Boon, D Jones et al had. Players that had a second home ground there and knew the grounds and pitches inside and out. Far more than a warmup tour provides. There used to be lots more county pros in intl cricket than now for Aus and all non EWCB nations. There is nothing to stop the injury support players from being in England playing county cricket already neither.

The overlap of the England start of summer with IPL is a factor that effects both host and tourist and will in time become more pronounced. NZ has a problem with its summer running on too long into the Pakistan T20 champs. We typically have to start our summers later than Aus, due to getting your short tourists to play here afterwards as well as Safrica and Australia only having room to tour NZ after their own international summers are more or less complete. The days of tourists taking an age on a boat to get to England by May, and then playing whatever games they could get organised to earn some extra pennies before the end of September are gone. Air travel and less cost, TV broadcasting, more international teams, more international matches played, pyjama cricket, IPL are all factors causing the trend change.

What would be good, is if the host nation did its best to ensure that the limited warmup games are of high quality opposition and on good surfaces, but so many countires wish to extract every competitive edge. And Australia themselves are not in the best standing here; look at the NZ 2015 tour debacle of a warmup. But, this is easier said than done with the domestic scene players having their own players and grounds under contract. Mick here is something to ponder, in 1993, AB instructed Warne in the warmup games not to bowl his variations and not to bowl his best in the county games. The county batsman scored heavily off him and said there was no real threat regards Warne. Then he unleashed in the tests.

All the above not withstanding I want more 'A' cricket against 'A' teams and full intl teams. I think this will help ALL nations raise their depth and quality of intl teams, and assist in better top level selections. I'd televise A team pyjama games against intl sides as well.

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."

Paddles it's straight forward evidence, that from 2005 Australia has not won a series in England after destroying England in the previous 4 and that is the 1st tour we changed the scheduling. In the old days Australian sides would spend months together touring England and bond as a team, come fairly crap England teams didn't hurt either. Play Cricket in England over winter, the ODI side was in England for the Champs trophy most of June, the A side was supposed to go to SA in Early July,. The Australian players get about 3 months a year off so they are not going to spend it in England. One thing we definitely should look at for 2019 us at least 1 test if not 2 against Ireland before getting to England, far better prep than playing against County 2nd 11s.

Mick180461 wrote:Paddles it's straight forward evidence, that from 2005 Australia has not won a series in England after destroying England in the previous 4 and that is the 1st tour we changed the scheduling. In the old days Australian sides would spend months together touring England and bond as a team, come fairly crap England teams didn't hurt either.

Evidence of what? You have two fallacies going on here. First is that correlation of facts is not proof of causation. I can factually say that Australia has not won an Ashes in England since the White Stripes released the song "Seven Nation Army" in 2003 (a song favourite at England cricket grounds. Curiously this song even makes USA lists for best home ground sports songs to "pump" the crowd up).

The second is that you are making a hasty generalization from a faulty sample size. Australia had full tours and warmups in 1985 and lost. Lost in 1981, Lost in 1977. Won in 1975. Drew in 1972. Drew in 1968. You're also attempting to argue against the fact that traditionally it is easier to win at home than away, strongly suggested by all statistical metrics. At some point, long tour or short tour, England was likely to resume winning some test series at home.

Now if we look at the series individually, if Glen McGrath is not injured in 2005, standing on some stray ball, who wins the Ashes? If KP was playing for South Africa, who wins the Ashes?Now if we look at the series individually, if Glen McGrath is not injured in 2005, standing on some stray ball, who wins the Ashes? If KP was playing for South Africa, who wins the Ashes? If Warne, Kasprowicz and Lee had just got a few more runs, and Australia wins the first 2 tests of the 2005 Ashes, despite a short tour.

2009 how does England save the first test but for rain? Could Monty really hang on that much longer? But the 2009 Aussie team was much weaker than 2005, 2001 or 1997. McGrath and Warne are ATG of the game. They are incredibly difficult players to replace. McGrath spent the winters before 2001 and 2005 playing county cricket. Warne had a long career with Hampshire. Australia was always likely to be weaker from 2007 onwards with their retirements. And that super batting line up that used to squeeze out Hayden, Lehmann or Hodge of the side, that was always going to be difficult to maintain. So simply, Australia becomes a much stronger then weaker team as your sample progresses. The only thing proven so far is that the super strong Australian sides did better in England in 2001 by winning and 2005 (losing by a whisker at the 2nd test) than the weaker sides since.

Now if the causative link to your argument is that the warm up games enable getting use to the English conditions, then its a factor to consider such as this: in the past Australian batsmen spent a lot of offseasons in England for the winter, not in the IPL, not just for a few NatWest Blast games later. They spent more time batting over there. Heck many of them were doing this well before being nationally selected - Mark Waugh and Mike Hussey are prime examples. The point remains, the doors to England are not closed to the Australian cricketers outside national tours.

There are a whole host of factors at play, as I mention above. Do I think the less tour games is a possible factor? Sure. Do I think its the sole cause? No. By your own rationale of conditions, it is weaker reason than Australian batsmen and cricketers in general playing less county cricket. Mark Waugh signed with Essex in like 1988, and made his first Ashes tour in 1993. Hussey was the leading run scorer in County Cricket in 2001, years before he played for Australia. Langer and Hayden were well tuned in county cricket by 2001 Ashes. Langer had even been a season captain. AB did his years over there. So did Lehmann. Even Steve Waugh had a bit of Lancashire League under his belt before 1989. Martyn was there in 1991.

Now the likes of Steve Smith, a bit of county in 2011, a bit of county in 2009, would rather play IPL and have some long holidays. Hey why not, it pays better and you only live once. But its fringe and players comming through as well like Maxwell, Lynn, Khawaja, Henriques and many more all at the IPL. Times have changed. But cash strapped Kiwi cricketers could field an almost international XI post IPL from county cricket, if not better with all main players plus Ryder with only injury prone T Boult skipping county cricket.

Will the resultant short tours of England result in more England Ashes series victories as the sole factor? No because England plays it own warmup test level series at home since 2001 before the Ashes; this is deliberate, and cut the England Ashes series from 6 tests to 5, as they play an additional 2 test tour beforehand; and there is that pesky IPL and franchise t20 over county cricket overlap factors, and not withstanding - I see England losing more series at home like they did 2014 vs Sri Lanka, 2012 vs South Africa, and 2007 vs India or even the draw like Pakistan got in 2016.

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."